Purpose This study aims to characterize the performance of a prototype rapid kilovoltage (kV) x‐ray image guidance system onboard the newly released Halcyon 2.0 linear accelerator (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) by use of conventional and innovatively designed testing procedures. Methods Basic imaging system performance tests and radiation dose measurements were performed for all eleven kV‐cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging protocols available on a preclinical Halcyon 2.0 LINAC. Both conventional CBCT reconstruction using the Feldkamp–Davis–Kress (FDK) algorithm and a novel, advanced iterative reconstruction (iCBCT) available on this platform were evaluated. Standard image quality metrics, including slice thickness accuracy, high‐contrast resolution, low‐contrast resolution, regional uniformity and noise, and CT Hounsfield unit (HU) number accuracy and linearity were evaluated using a manufacturer‐supplied QUART phantom (GmbH, Zorneding, Germany) and an independent image quality phantom (Catphan 500, The Phantom Laboratory, New York, NY). Due to the simplified design of the QUART phantom, we developed surrogate and clinically feasible strategies for measuring slice thickness and high‐ and low‐contrast resolution. Imaging dose delivered by these eleven protocols was measured using a computed tomography dose index phantom and pencil chamber with commonly accepted methods and procedures. A subset of measurements were repeated on a conventional C‐arm LINAC (TrueBeam and Trilogy, Varian Medical System) for comparison. Clinical patient images of pelvic and abdominal regions are also presented for qualitative assessment as part of a feasibility study for clinical implementation. Results Image acquisition time was 17–42 s on the Halcyon system compared with 60 s on the C‐arm LINAC systems. The kV imager projection offset, imaging and treatment isocenter coincidence and the couch three‐dimensional match movement all achieved less than1 mm mechanical accuracy. All major image quality metrics were within either the national guideline or vendor‐recommended tolerances. The designed surrogate approach with the QUART phantom showed a range of 0.24–0.35 cycles/mm for spatial resolution, a contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) of 2–20 for FDK reconstruction and a tolerance of 0.5 mm for slice thickness. Other metrics derived from the Catphan images obtained on the Halcyon and C‐arm LINACs showed comparable values for the FDK reconstruction. The iterative reconstruction tended to reduce noise, as evidenced by a higher CNR ratio. The fast scan pelvis protocols for Halcyon resulted in 50% lower dose compared to the standard scans, and the thorax fast protocol similarly delivered 10% lower dose than the standard thoracic scan. Preliminary patient images indicated that rapid kV CBCT with breath‐hold is feasible, with improved imaging quality compared to free‐breathing scans. Conclusion Independent and comprehensive characterization of the kV imaging guidance system on the Halcyon 2.0 system demonstrated acceptable image qual...

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to investigate the systematic localization accuracy, treatment planning capability, and delivery accuracy of an integrated magnetic resonance imaging guided Linear Accelerator (MR-Linac) platform for stereotactic radiosurgery. Materials and methods: The phantom for the end-to-end test comprises three different compartments: a rectangular MR/CT target phantom, a Winston–Lutz cube, and a rectangular MR/CT isocenter phantom. Hidden target tests were performed at gantry angles of 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees to quantify the systematic accuracy. Five patient plans with a total of eleven lesions were used to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy. Single-isocenter IMRT treatment plans using 10–15 coplanar beams were generated to treat the multiple metastases. Results: The end-to-end localization accuracy of the system was 1.0 ± 0.1 mm. The conformity index, homogeneity index and gradient index of the plans were 1.26 ± 0.22, 1.22 ± 0.10, and 5.38 ± 1.44, respectively. The average absolute point dose difference between measured and calculated dose was 1.64 ± 1. 90%, and the mean percentage of points passing the 3%/1 mm gamma criteria was 96.87%. Conclusions: Our experience demonstrates that excellent plan quality and delivery accuracy was achievable on the MR-Linac for treating multiple brain metastases with a single isocenter.

Purpose To perform a comprehensive validation of plans generated on a preconfigured Halcyon 2.0 with preloaded beam model, including evaluations of new features and implementing the patient specific quality assurance (PSQA) process with multiple detectors. Methods A total of 56 plans were generated in Eclipse V15.6 (Varian Medical System) with a preconfigured Halcyon treatment machine. Ten plans were developed via the AAPM TG‐119 test suite with both IMRT and VMAT techniques. 34 clinically treated plans using C‐arm LINAC from 24 patients were replanned on Halcyon using IMRT or VMAT techniques for a variety of sites including: brain, head and neck, lung, breast, abdomen, and pelvis. Six of those plans were breast VMAT plans utilizing the extended treatment field technique available with Halcyon 2.0. The dynamically flattened beam (DFB), another new feature on Halcyon 2.0, was also used for an AP/PA spine and four field box pelvis, as well as ten 3D breast plans. All 56 plans were measured with an ion chamber (IC), film, portal dosimetry (PD), ArcCHECK, and Delta4. Tolerance and action limits were calculated and compared to the recommendations of TG‐218. Results TG‐119 IC and film confidence limits met those set by the task group, except for IMRT target point dose. Forty‐four of 46 clinical plans were within 3% for IC measurements. Average gamma passing rates with 3% dose difference and 2mm distance‐to‐agreement for IMRT/VMAT plans were: Film – 96.8%, PD – 99.9%, ArcCHECK – 99.1%, and Delta4 – 99.2%. Calculated action limits were: Film – 86.3%, PD – 98.4%, ArcCHECK – 96.1%, and Delta4 – 95.7%. Extended treatment field technique was fully validated and 3D plans with DFB had similar results to IMRT/VMAT plans. Conclusion Halcyon plan deliveries were verified with multiple measurement devices. New features of Halcyon 2.0 were also validated. Traditional PSQA techniques and process specific tolerance and action limits were successfully implemented.

BackgroundThis study intends to develop an efficient field‐in‐field (FiF) planning technique with the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) to determine the feasibility of using the Halcyon treatment delivery system for 3D treatment of breast cancer.MethodsTen treatment plans were prepared on the Halcyon treatment planning system and compared to the same patients’ clinically delivered TrueBeam plans which used flattened 6 MV and 10 MV beams. Patients selected for this study were treated via simple, tangential breast irradiation and did not receive radiotherapy of the supraclavicular or internal mammary lymph nodes. Planning target volumes (PTV) volumes ranged from 519 cc to 1211 cc with a mean target volume of 877 cc. Several planning techniques involving collimator, gantry rotation, and number of FiF segments were investigated as well as the use of the dynamically flattened beam (DFB) — a predefined MLC pattern that is designed to provide a flattened beam profile at 10 cm depth on a standard water phantom. For comparison, the clinically delivered TrueBeam plans remained unaltered except for normalization of the target coverage to more readily compare the two treatment delivery techniques.ResultsUsing the physician defined PTV, normalized such that 98% of the volume was covered by 95% of the prescribed dose, the Halcyon plans were deemed clinically acceptable and comparable to the TrueBeam plans by the radiation oncologist. Resulting average global maximum doses in the test patients were identical between the TrueBeam and Halcyon plans (108% of Rx) and a mean PTV dose of 102.5% vs 101.6%, respectively.ConclusionsFrom this study a practical and efficient planning method for delivering 3D conformal breast radiotherapy using the Halcyon linear accelerator has been developed. When normalized to the clinically desired coverage, hot spots were maintained to acceptable levels and overall plan quality was comparable to plans delivered on conventional C‐arm LINACs.

No abstract

Purpose: To apply an imaging metric of the structural SIMilarity (SSIM) index to the radiotherapy dose verification field and evaluate its capability to reveal the different types of errors between two dose distributions. Method: The SSIM index consists of three sub-indices: luminance, contrast, and structure. Given two images, luminance analysis compares the local mean result, contrast analysis compares the local standard deviation, and the structure index represents the local Pearson correlation. Three test error patterns (absolute dose error, dose gradient error, and dose structure error) were designed to characterize the response of SSIM and its sub-indices and establish the correlation between the indices and different dose error types. After establishing the correlation, four radiotherapy plans (one MLC picket-fence test plan, one brain stereotactic radiotherapy plan, and two head-and-neck plans) were tested by computing each index and compared with the gamma analysis results to determine their similarities and differences. Results: Among the three test error patterns, the luminance index decreased from 1 to 0.1 when the absolute dose agreement fell from 100% to 5%, the contrast index decreased from 1 to 0.36 when the dose gradient agreement fell from 100% to 10%, and the structure index decreased from 1 to 0.23 when the periodical dose pattern shifted (leading to a lower correlation). Thus, the luminance, contrast and structure index can detect the absolute dose error, gradient discrepancy, and dose structure error, respectively. For the four clinical cases, the sub-indices can reveal the type of error when gamma analysis only provided limited information. Conclusions: The correlation between the subcomponents of the SSIM index and the error types of the dose distribution were established. The SSIM index provides additional error information compared to that provided by gamma analysis.

Superficial dose is an important parameter in breast cancer radiation therapy. When treated with conventional linacs, bolus is commonly applied to improve target coverage near the surface while also managing the risk of severe skin reactions and negative cosmesis. With the introduction of modern linacs with 6X flattening filter free (FFF) photon beams, the effect on superficial dose and the need for bolus must be evaluated. Methods and Materials:In vivo measurements of superficial dose were made with optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters on 11 breast cancer patients treated with the Halcyon 6X FFF linac (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Additionally, measurements were made with the Halycon 6X FFF beam and a 6X beam with flattening filter (FF) delivered to an anthropomorphic phantom. A planning study was carried out in which 14 patients treated on the Halcyon were replanned with a conventional linac to determine the difference in superficial dose predicted by the treatment planning system. Measures were taken to increase the accuracy of the treatment planning system superficial dose.

To test the feasibility of a simplified, robust, workflow for intracranial stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) using a ring gantry linear accelerator (RGLA) equipped with a dual-layer stacked, staggered, and interdigitating multileaf collimator. Materials and Methods: Twenty recent clinical SRT cases treated using a radiosurgery c-arm linear accelerator were anonymized. From these data sets, a new planning workflow was developed and used to replan these cases, which then were compared to their clinical counterparts. Population-based dose-volume histograms were analyzed for target coverage and sparing of healthy brain. All plans underwent plan review and quality assurance and were delivered on an end-to-end verification phantom using image guidance to simulate treatment. Results: The RGLA plans were able to meet departmental standards for target coverage and organ-at-risk sparing and showed plan quality similar to the clinical plans. RGLA plans showed increases in the 50% isodose in the axial plane but decreases in the sagittal and coronal planes. There were no statistically significant differences in the homogeneity index or number of monitor units between the 2 systems. There were statistically significant increases in conformity and gradient indices, with median values of 1.09 versus 1.11 and 2.82 versus 3.13, respectively, for the c-arm versus RGLA plans. These differences were not believed to be clinically significant because they met clinical goals. The population-based dose-volume histograms showed target coverage and organ-at-risk sparing similar to that of the clinical plans. All plans were able to meet the departmental quality assurance requirements and were delivered under image guidance on an end-to-end phantom with measurements agreeing within 3% of the expected value. RGLA plans showed a median reduction in delivery time of z50%.